Post by High Priestess on Oct 15, 2016 21:29:07 GMT
I wanted to share some recommendations on a few local (East Bay and Bay Area) ballot measures and candidates -- those which are related to the issue of both short term rentals, property rentals, and property owners. I want to clarify my biases at the outset: I'm opposed to all forms of rent control, as well as "add-ons" to property taxes.
First, in Berkeley, there are two areas to look at. Several individuals are running for mayor, and there are a couple measures on the ballot to comment on.
Mayor of Berkeley
Berkeley has a couple of the usual colorful characters running for mayor, one of whom (Zachary Running Wolf) is currently in jail on a vandalism charge. Another is a homeless man (Mike Lee) who has papered the South Berkeley area with flyers insisting that people shouldn't make money from their properties.
Arguably the best candidate for mayor, from the perspective of those doing property rentals, is one who is not likely to be elected. This is Bernie Wahl -- he must get a lot of laughs about his name, particularly at Burning Man -- who is probably the most "pro business" candidate on the ballot.
Here's some on Wahl... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernt_Wahl Wahl said "“The poor mom and pops are the ones who are being penalized, because they have no power,” Wahl said. “I can understand economics really well, (and) I want to solve the problems.” That sounds good to me. This sounds even better: “I have a lot of ideas of how to make Berkeley a better city, mostly dealing with technology or efficiencies,” he said, arguing that city bureaucracy gets in the way of entrepreneurs trying to start new businesses." (From this Berkeleyside article: www.berkeleyside.com/2012/09/25/mayoral-candidate-wants-a-more-business-friendly-city/ when Wahl ran for mayor in 2012) I think Wahl is actually the best candidate in terms of the likelihood of his support of Airbnb hosts and small business! But is he electable? Unfortunately I dont' think he has a chance against the three candidates who are all currently city council members -- Laurie Capitelli, Kriss Worthington and Jesse Arreguin.
THe candidate I recommend for Berkeley mayor is Laurie Capitelli. He's viewed as a moderate liberal, whereas Worthington and Arreguin are more to the left. Current Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates as well as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and many others are endorsing Laurie Capitelli, who has a background in architecture. Jesse Arreguin and Kriss Worthington have been somewhat more anti-Airbnb council members (important to note though that no Berkeley council member has been opposed to all short term rentals), eager to put more restrictions in the proposed STR rules, and eager about enforcement. Arreguin is responsible for the proposed STR rules being expanded from the short version first written by Mayor Bates, to the longer more restrictive version. He's been the most vocal city Councilmember pushing for heavy enforcement of these rules. He introduced the language in the STR regulations which would allow hosts to be sued. He is has stated (at the last City Council meeting in July) that he would like the law to include the option to fine Airbnb if Airbnb doesn't police hosts and hosts' listings...something that not only isn't workable, but it's quite possibly illegal, as San Francisco, Anaheim, and Santa Monica are finding after being sued by Airbnb for passing laws allowing them to fine Airbnb if Airbnb doesn't help them do their own law enforcement.
Kriss Worthington, Max Anderson and Jesse Arreguin have also been among the more strident on the Council about "protecting long term housing from being converted to Airbnb rentals" in spite of the fact that most hosts who have spoken at City Council meetings have been abundantly clear that they are not converting long term housing to Airbnb rentals. Both Arreguin and Worthington cling tenaciously to rent control as an ideology, one that I feel is outworn and outdated, and needs to be replaced with something that works better to create affordable housing. Arreguin and Worthington both seek to overturn a state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a law which limits the applicability of rent control to many types of dwellings, and thus protects property owners from government expropriation of their property.
The Costa-Hawkins Act states that condos, single family homes, and units built after 1995 are exempt from rent control, and that there would be "vacancy decontrol" meaning that once a renter vacates a unit, the owner can increase the rent to market rates (or as much as desired). Arreguin and Worthington would like to see rent control expanded and vacancy decontrol abolished, so that when units covered by rent control are vacated, the landlord could not increase the rent more than rent control allowed -- typically a small amount in the range of 1% a year, which does not keep up with the cost of living. Note too that some units covered by rent control are being forced by rent control laws to continue to be rented at rents which have not been market level for 30 years -- such as two tenants I know (friends of mine) in the Ghourmet Ghetto in Berkeley. They live as a couple in a 1 bedroom apartment that would rent for $2400-$2900 today, but since they have been there 35 years, they are paying under $500 a month for the place. It's a great deal for them, but their low rent together with the impossibilty of getting them out of the place is part of the reason the owner of that property ended up selling the building.
Recently, a local host asked Arreguin if he would support STRs in ADUs, and he suggested he would, but I think that response is misleading, if not dishonest, and it doesn't correspond with what those of us who have attended Berkeley City Council meetings, Housing Advisory Commission meetings, and Planning Commission meetings for over a year and a half on this issue have observed. I think Arreguin is very conscious of the election in 3 weeks and so is oriented to saying what he thinks will get him elected. Some of the very first changes to the proposed STR regulations came in May 2015 from Jesse Arreguin, who changed the original language of the regulations such that STRs would be prohibited in ADUs, as STRs were to be permitted only in the hosts' primary residence. Arreguin changed the language of the STR regulations from stating, "the property must be the owner or tenant's primary residence" (Which would have allowed owners to rent out an additional unit on their property, in which they didn't live, such as an ADU) to this language: "The unit must be the owner or tenant's primary residence." Hence, Arreguin was really the first City Councilmember to oppose STRs in ADUs, in that he authored this amendment to the original regulations.
See this here in the first page of his proposed amendment to the STR regs:
Berkeley Ballot Measures U1 and DD
Ballot measures U1 and DD are rival measures seeking to impose new taxes on owners of rental property in Berkeley, rationalizing that those who are profiting from the housing crunch should be the ones paying for affordable housing. Measure U1 would tax only "large" landlords -- those who own more than 5 rental units -- by increasing their business license tax by $30 per unit, per month. This increase would result in the business license tax going from 1.08% to 2.88% for such landlords. (see www.berkeleyside.com/2016/08/19/landlord-group-sues-berkeley-over-rental-tax-initiative/ ) IT would exempt small landlords, rent controlled units, and newly built units. Measure DD is a competing measure which doesn't exempt small landlords and which would increase the tax only half as much.
I recommend voting against both measures, but particularly against Measure DD. I dont' think the way to create affordable housing is to punish property owners -- as I've written about elsewhere (see globalhostingblogs.com/2015/12/18/airbnb-and-the-housing-crisis/ ) , I think the best routes to more affordable housing are to be found by reducing the costs of building such housing, a very significant portion of which are owing to government fees and government regulations.
Measure E1 and T1
Next, there are several measures on the ballot to increase property taxes in Berkeley -- all of which I oppose, since Property Tax "add-ons" can add up to quite a significant amount. www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Finance/Home/Real_Property__Annual_Tax_Statements.aspx
Moreover, though the theory is that the taxes are for city services, like schools and library use, so that every resident should pay for them equally, these tax costs are not borne equally by owners and renters.
Measure E1 -- property tax for education
Measure T1-- property tax for fixing parks, sidewalks and senior centers
Measure AA
THis measure is a concerning one, which imitates legislation in San Francisco. I recommend voting NO. It seeks to forbid owner move-in evictions during the school year (which is 75% of the year), when the tenants have school age children. This is another attempt by the government to expropriate private property, and this measure is particularly egregious because it would prohibit property owners from moving into their own property for most of the year. While it's true that an eviction of a family with children is disruptive to the child, it's also disruptive to the adults. Any tenant is going to be disrupted by an eviction -- it's a very disruptive thing. Yet prohibiting an owner from being able to move into their own building, is also very disruptive. And it's my view that if anyone's life is going to be disrupted by laws pertaining to rental property, the disruption should be the tenant's and not the property owner's -- particularly a small property owner.
Further, the rationale that we should prohibit some evictions because they are hard on tenants, is a concerning precedent -- because really every eviction is hard on a tenant, so the forseeable result of this logical train of thought is to prohibit all evictions. Do we want a world where no landlord could ever evict a tenant? For any reason? Because it's hard on them?
Also, I think one of the drawbacks of creating "eviction protections" for any specific class of people, is that you then motivate property owners to be less likely to rent to such individuals. Protections for the elderly mean that property owners, knowing that they may have a harder time evicting such individuals, are less likely to rent to them in the first place. Protections for families with children, mean that property owners when faced with a choice of renters, will be less likely to rent to families with children. And really, when considering who needs to be protected from evictions, again we could come up with an endless number of examples why eviction is hard on renters.
City of Oakland measures -- Parcel Tax Measure G1
As with Berkeley's Parcel Tax measures, I recommend voting NO on Measure G1 which would increase property taxes by $120 a year to pay for education.
Oakland Measure to Expand Rent Control MEasure JJ
I strongly recommend voting NO on Oakland's Measure JJ which would seek to expand the city's rent control laws. The measure would expand rent control to cover buildings built before 1996, while current rent control laws cover only buildings built before 1980. Thus many property owners whose property is not now under rent control, would be subject to rent control. As well, under this measure, landlords could not increase rents beyond the CPI adjusted amount, without first petitioning to the city's rent board.
At first glance, many may not think this ballot measure relates to hosting, but it does. Many cities prohibit people doing short term rentals in units that are subject to rent control -- regardless of whether the person renting that unit out is the tenant resident of the unit. THus, the more units in a city which are subject to rent control, quite possibly, the fewer tenants in that city who would have the option of doing short term rentals in their unit.
City of Alameda Rent Control Measures L1 and M1
These two measures have to do with rent control in Alameda, a city which has up to now had no rent control. THis website gives perspectives on these measures from the viewpoint of the property owner: www.saveourcityalameda.org/ MEasure L1 would require landlords to go to mediation with tenants when the tenant feels that a rent increase is too high. This seems relatively innocuous as it mandates no action on the part of the landlord, other than attending a mediation. The landlord is not obligated to do anything, except listen. I recommend voting yes.
MEasure M1 is a true rent control measure that would enact rent control in Alameda, so I strongly recommend voting NO on Measure M1 and keeping property right freedoms in Alameda.
See the statement above regarding why voting rent control into law in Alameda would negatively impact hosts -- it could quite possibly result in many tenant hosts being no longer able to do short term rentals.
Alameda also has a parcel tax measure on the ballot, Measure B1, and I recommend voting NO on that as well.
City of Richmond Rent Control Measure L
Vote NO on Measure L which would enact rent control in the city of Richmond, making it the first city in California to enact rent control in 30 years.
A number of organizations are trying to expand rent control in California -- see the NY Times article on this here: www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/california-today-rent-control.html
See also this East Bay Express article which discusses other rent control ballot measures around the Bay -- in San Mateo, Burlingame, and Palo Alto.
www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/a-roundup-of-rent-control-ballot-measures-in-the-bay-area-this-election/Content?oid=5022780
As I've written in the blog cited above, over 90% of economists questioned on the matter, agree that rent control does nothing to make housing more affordable. Rather it decreases the amount of available affordable housing, provides an incentive for renters to hoard their housing and never move, and it interferes with property owners' ability to do business freely.
First, in Berkeley, there are two areas to look at. Several individuals are running for mayor, and there are a couple measures on the ballot to comment on.
Mayor of Berkeley
Berkeley has a couple of the usual colorful characters running for mayor, one of whom (Zachary Running Wolf) is currently in jail on a vandalism charge. Another is a homeless man (Mike Lee) who has papered the South Berkeley area with flyers insisting that people shouldn't make money from their properties.
Arguably the best candidate for mayor, from the perspective of those doing property rentals, is one who is not likely to be elected. This is Bernie Wahl -- he must get a lot of laughs about his name, particularly at Burning Man -- who is probably the most "pro business" candidate on the ballot.
Here's some on Wahl... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernt_Wahl Wahl said "“The poor mom and pops are the ones who are being penalized, because they have no power,” Wahl said. “I can understand economics really well, (and) I want to solve the problems.” That sounds good to me. This sounds even better: “I have a lot of ideas of how to make Berkeley a better city, mostly dealing with technology or efficiencies,” he said, arguing that city bureaucracy gets in the way of entrepreneurs trying to start new businesses." (From this Berkeleyside article: www.berkeleyside.com/2012/09/25/mayoral-candidate-wants-a-more-business-friendly-city/ when Wahl ran for mayor in 2012) I think Wahl is actually the best candidate in terms of the likelihood of his support of Airbnb hosts and small business! But is he electable? Unfortunately I dont' think he has a chance against the three candidates who are all currently city council members -- Laurie Capitelli, Kriss Worthington and Jesse Arreguin.
THe candidate I recommend for Berkeley mayor is Laurie Capitelli. He's viewed as a moderate liberal, whereas Worthington and Arreguin are more to the left. Current Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates as well as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and many others are endorsing Laurie Capitelli, who has a background in architecture. Jesse Arreguin and Kriss Worthington have been somewhat more anti-Airbnb council members (important to note though that no Berkeley council member has been opposed to all short term rentals), eager to put more restrictions in the proposed STR rules, and eager about enforcement. Arreguin is responsible for the proposed STR rules being expanded from the short version first written by Mayor Bates, to the longer more restrictive version. He's been the most vocal city Councilmember pushing for heavy enforcement of these rules. He introduced the language in the STR regulations which would allow hosts to be sued. He is has stated (at the last City Council meeting in July) that he would like the law to include the option to fine Airbnb if Airbnb doesn't police hosts and hosts' listings...something that not only isn't workable, but it's quite possibly illegal, as San Francisco, Anaheim, and Santa Monica are finding after being sued by Airbnb for passing laws allowing them to fine Airbnb if Airbnb doesn't help them do their own law enforcement.
Kriss Worthington, Max Anderson and Jesse Arreguin have also been among the more strident on the Council about "protecting long term housing from being converted to Airbnb rentals" in spite of the fact that most hosts who have spoken at City Council meetings have been abundantly clear that they are not converting long term housing to Airbnb rentals. Both Arreguin and Worthington cling tenaciously to rent control as an ideology, one that I feel is outworn and outdated, and needs to be replaced with something that works better to create affordable housing. Arreguin and Worthington both seek to overturn a state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, a law which limits the applicability of rent control to many types of dwellings, and thus protects property owners from government expropriation of their property.
The Costa-Hawkins Act states that condos, single family homes, and units built after 1995 are exempt from rent control, and that there would be "vacancy decontrol" meaning that once a renter vacates a unit, the owner can increase the rent to market rates (or as much as desired). Arreguin and Worthington would like to see rent control expanded and vacancy decontrol abolished, so that when units covered by rent control are vacated, the landlord could not increase the rent more than rent control allowed -- typically a small amount in the range of 1% a year, which does not keep up with the cost of living. Note too that some units covered by rent control are being forced by rent control laws to continue to be rented at rents which have not been market level for 30 years -- such as two tenants I know (friends of mine) in the Ghourmet Ghetto in Berkeley. They live as a couple in a 1 bedroom apartment that would rent for $2400-$2900 today, but since they have been there 35 years, they are paying under $500 a month for the place. It's a great deal for them, but their low rent together with the impossibilty of getting them out of the place is part of the reason the owner of that property ended up selling the building.
Recently, a local host asked Arreguin if he would support STRs in ADUs, and he suggested he would, but I think that response is misleading, if not dishonest, and it doesn't correspond with what those of us who have attended Berkeley City Council meetings, Housing Advisory Commission meetings, and Planning Commission meetings for over a year and a half on this issue have observed. I think Arreguin is very conscious of the election in 3 weeks and so is oriented to saying what he thinks will get him elected. Some of the very first changes to the proposed STR regulations came in May 2015 from Jesse Arreguin, who changed the original language of the regulations such that STRs would be prohibited in ADUs, as STRs were to be permitted only in the hosts' primary residence. Arreguin changed the language of the STR regulations from stating, "the property must be the owner or tenant's primary residence" (Which would have allowed owners to rent out an additional unit on their property, in which they didn't live, such as an ADU) to this language: "The unit must be the owner or tenant's primary residence." Hence, Arreguin was really the first City Councilmember to oppose STRs in ADUs, in that he authored this amendment to the original regulations.
See this here in the first page of his proposed amendment to the STR regs:
Berkeley Ballot Measures U1 and DD
Ballot measures U1 and DD are rival measures seeking to impose new taxes on owners of rental property in Berkeley, rationalizing that those who are profiting from the housing crunch should be the ones paying for affordable housing. Measure U1 would tax only "large" landlords -- those who own more than 5 rental units -- by increasing their business license tax by $30 per unit, per month. This increase would result in the business license tax going from 1.08% to 2.88% for such landlords. (see www.berkeleyside.com/2016/08/19/landlord-group-sues-berkeley-over-rental-tax-initiative/ ) IT would exempt small landlords, rent controlled units, and newly built units. Measure DD is a competing measure which doesn't exempt small landlords and which would increase the tax only half as much.
I recommend voting against both measures, but particularly against Measure DD. I dont' think the way to create affordable housing is to punish property owners -- as I've written about elsewhere (see globalhostingblogs.com/2015/12/18/airbnb-and-the-housing-crisis/ ) , I think the best routes to more affordable housing are to be found by reducing the costs of building such housing, a very significant portion of which are owing to government fees and government regulations.
Measure E1 and T1
Next, there are several measures on the ballot to increase property taxes in Berkeley -- all of which I oppose, since Property Tax "add-ons" can add up to quite a significant amount. www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Finance/Home/Real_Property__Annual_Tax_Statements.aspx
Moreover, though the theory is that the taxes are for city services, like schools and library use, so that every resident should pay for them equally, these tax costs are not borne equally by owners and renters.
Measure E1 -- property tax for education
Measure T1-- property tax for fixing parks, sidewalks and senior centers
Measure AA
THis measure is a concerning one, which imitates legislation in San Francisco. I recommend voting NO. It seeks to forbid owner move-in evictions during the school year (which is 75% of the year), when the tenants have school age children. This is another attempt by the government to expropriate private property, and this measure is particularly egregious because it would prohibit property owners from moving into their own property for most of the year. While it's true that an eviction of a family with children is disruptive to the child, it's also disruptive to the adults. Any tenant is going to be disrupted by an eviction -- it's a very disruptive thing. Yet prohibiting an owner from being able to move into their own building, is also very disruptive. And it's my view that if anyone's life is going to be disrupted by laws pertaining to rental property, the disruption should be the tenant's and not the property owner's -- particularly a small property owner.
Further, the rationale that we should prohibit some evictions because they are hard on tenants, is a concerning precedent -- because really every eviction is hard on a tenant, so the forseeable result of this logical train of thought is to prohibit all evictions. Do we want a world where no landlord could ever evict a tenant? For any reason? Because it's hard on them?
Also, I think one of the drawbacks of creating "eviction protections" for any specific class of people, is that you then motivate property owners to be less likely to rent to such individuals. Protections for the elderly mean that property owners, knowing that they may have a harder time evicting such individuals, are less likely to rent to them in the first place. Protections for families with children, mean that property owners when faced with a choice of renters, will be less likely to rent to families with children. And really, when considering who needs to be protected from evictions, again we could come up with an endless number of examples why eviction is hard on renters.
City of Oakland measures -- Parcel Tax Measure G1
As with Berkeley's Parcel Tax measures, I recommend voting NO on Measure G1 which would increase property taxes by $120 a year to pay for education.
Oakland Measure to Expand Rent Control MEasure JJ
I strongly recommend voting NO on Oakland's Measure JJ which would seek to expand the city's rent control laws. The measure would expand rent control to cover buildings built before 1996, while current rent control laws cover only buildings built before 1980. Thus many property owners whose property is not now under rent control, would be subject to rent control. As well, under this measure, landlords could not increase rents beyond the CPI adjusted amount, without first petitioning to the city's rent board.
At first glance, many may not think this ballot measure relates to hosting, but it does. Many cities prohibit people doing short term rentals in units that are subject to rent control -- regardless of whether the person renting that unit out is the tenant resident of the unit. THus, the more units in a city which are subject to rent control, quite possibly, the fewer tenants in that city who would have the option of doing short term rentals in their unit.
City of Alameda Rent Control Measures L1 and M1
These two measures have to do with rent control in Alameda, a city which has up to now had no rent control. THis website gives perspectives on these measures from the viewpoint of the property owner: www.saveourcityalameda.org/ MEasure L1 would require landlords to go to mediation with tenants when the tenant feels that a rent increase is too high. This seems relatively innocuous as it mandates no action on the part of the landlord, other than attending a mediation. The landlord is not obligated to do anything, except listen. I recommend voting yes.
MEasure M1 is a true rent control measure that would enact rent control in Alameda, so I strongly recommend voting NO on Measure M1 and keeping property right freedoms in Alameda.
See the statement above regarding why voting rent control into law in Alameda would negatively impact hosts -- it could quite possibly result in many tenant hosts being no longer able to do short term rentals.
Alameda also has a parcel tax measure on the ballot, Measure B1, and I recommend voting NO on that as well.
City of Richmond Rent Control Measure L
Vote NO on Measure L which would enact rent control in the city of Richmond, making it the first city in California to enact rent control in 30 years.
A number of organizations are trying to expand rent control in California -- see the NY Times article on this here: www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/california-today-rent-control.html
See also this East Bay Express article which discusses other rent control ballot measures around the Bay -- in San Mateo, Burlingame, and Palo Alto.
www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/a-roundup-of-rent-control-ballot-measures-in-the-bay-area-this-election/Content?oid=5022780
As I've written in the blog cited above, over 90% of economists questioned on the matter, agree that rent control does nothing to make housing more affordable. Rather it decreases the amount of available affordable housing, provides an incentive for renters to hoard their housing and never move, and it interferes with property owners' ability to do business freely.
